When the City of San Jose, California, went looking for a new police chief, city officials were roundly criticized for not making public the names of the candidates for that position. Instead, they reserved the right to keep the hiring process under wraps until the chief was selected, although at least one councilman said he would not be averse to announcing the names of the finalists.
Groups such as the NAACP and the ACLU criticized the city’s hiring method, saying that the public had a right to be included in the process. Although some cities, like Seattle, have opened the process to public scrutiny, many others keep the hiring for the top slot a private matter.
Although I appreciate that a community would want to know the character of the individuals vying for the job of police chief, I fall on the side of those who don’t believe civilians really understand what qualities make a good police chief. I don’t mean this as a put-down. I just think it’s the truth. And I’m not saying there is no place for civilians to be involved in criminal justice matters in their communities – quite the contrary. I believe public input and interface is crucial to the success of both a community and the department as a whole. But the qualities a civic group might find important in a police chief and the qualities that a police chief might really need to be a success are two entirely different things.
Let me use an analogy here. I have lived in or around military bases all of my life. My father was a Navy lifer. My spouse was in the Marine Corps and many of my friends are associated with the military either as military dependents or from having served themselves.
I probably know more about the military than most people who have not served their country. I can talk the talk, I understand what they do and how they do it and I keep up with the news. Does that make me the right person to choose the next Commandant of the Marine Corps? Should I even have a voice in the matter?
Let’s switch positions here. I live in my community. I know it well. I also know its needs and what many of the citizens want from their police department. In my case, I have police experience. I am by far more qualified to comment on the background and ability to lead a department than the average citizen, but do you think I should be the one to choose the next police chief in my town?
I don’t. Even though I have a direct interest in the matter. As an aside, I also don’t think I should be choosing the Commandant, either.
I have always been of the opinion that politics and police work should be separate entities. The office of the sheriff in my state is constitutionally an elected one. In my opinion it’s a tradition that will never change, but I think it makes the office much too political in nature. The sheriff always has to worry about whether people will vote for him or not. It doesn't always mix well with the job he (or she) is required to do. It is my opinion that by exposing the names of candidates for the position of police chief, cities unwittingly turn the process of choosing a chief into a political matter.
San Jose says that releasing the names reduces the number of good qualified candidates who apply. I think that’s also true: Many good cops don’t want their current employer to know they’re looking. And there’s nothing wrong with that. How many of those who protest keeping applicants secret would want their own boss to know they’re out applying for jobs?
My guess is the number would be very small. This is a case of do as I say, not do as I do.
